before he dies, I'd love to see....?

[eFestivals]

You'll turn anything I say into an argument man.

Really? It's funny, cos these words below don't look like me trying to start an argument.

while I get you want to see them, they're really not worth seeing. They are the definitive "going thru the motions" band.

The argument came from you trying to tell me that my opinion is wrong and not shared by others despite you having zero knowledge to contribute of your own, and there's more than enough posts in this thread including from a mega Cure fan to demonstrate that I was spot on.

The reality is that you started the argument. Grow up!

[beau1]

I was there. You weren't (from what you've said). The Cure played 2nd from top, during an lightning storm which was far more entertaining than they were. The rain started as they left the stage, and I got drenched standing there waiting for the next act ... It's possible that they were on a different night to the Furs, but that's not my memory of it.

edit: i just took a call from a guy who I've never spoken with previously, who just so happened to have been at Glasto '86. He said the Furs followed the Cure too.

corrected for you.

I'm pretty sure I've not said "bad" at any point in this convo (tho I could be wrong) - I've certainly said on most occasions if not all something lesser than that.

In which case 'mad' can be added to their faults.

Edited October 29, 2010 by beau1

[eFestivals]

I wasn't there in 1986 but they are clearly at the 'top' of the 1986 poster for the saturday night, also if read any reference to 1986 they are one of the first bands to be mentioned which pretty much suggests to me they were either headlining or were booked as headliners and things got moved around and they were joint headliners.

Nope. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

As for people not being there in 1990...well why did people vote for it then? It is pretty widely accepted by Cure fans that their Glastonbury performances weren't their best ever shows, so I doubt very much they were the ones voting for it.

:lol;

Obsessives will always follow thru on their obsessions. It happens constantly.

[beau1]

Nope. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

:lol;

Obsessives will always follow thru on their obsessions. It happens constantly.

Edited October 29, 2010 by beau1

[eFestivals]

The various posters and setlists on this site suggest otherwise. They may not have been the last to play but they were clearly booked to headline.

that's simply the result of the chaotic and devolved way that Glastonbury used to be run. The guy who did the art stuff (don't think the same guy has done it now for about 10 years) had a completely free hand.

[beau1]

that's simply the result of the chaotic and devolved way that Glastonbury used to be run. The guy who did the art stuff (don't think the same guy has done it now for about 10 years) had a completely free hand.

Edited October 29, 2010 by beau1

[eFestivals]

So the same guy made the setlist that clearly shows them being placed at the 10pm slot? Hmmmm...

a 10pm slot isn't (or wasn't in those days, anyhow) a headline slot. The headline act would have come on at around 10:45pm, or 11pm.

The Cure were finished playing before it was dark that year, 100% definitely.

Still pretty much shows that they were at least booked as headliners.

Nope, presented to the public as the biggest act perhaps.

Btw: I'm not arguing whether they were the last to play or not. However, they are the first name you see in regard to Glasto 1986 (even when it comes to the History of each year on this site) and theres a lot of evidence that points towards the fact they were meant to play last/headline.

of the bands that played that year at the top end of the bill, they're the band that have have continued to mean something thru all of the following years. Most people today would say "who?" if you mentioned the Furs to them.

They also played for quite a long time, they played 20 songs compared with the Furs 17 from the night before which also suggests to me they either headlined or were joint headliners and played for the same amount of time as the band that played above them.

They might have played a long-ish set - just as 2nd from top does nowadays.

Things have changed in the last couple of years to give the headliners a far longer slot, but the norm back then was around 1hr 30mins for the headliner and 1hr 15mins for the 2nd from top.

It's possible that they got a slightly longer set than the normal for 2nd from top, but Glastonbury has never billed any acts as joint headliner, so The Cure weren't that.

Edited October 29, 2010 by eFestivals

[Wooderson]

I saw the Cure a few years back. There was a 5 song section that was spine-tingling.

Lovesong

Inbetween days

Just like heaven

Pictures of you

Lullaby

Theyve such a broad range of stuff that only an überfan could really get into it. I didnt know 60% of the setlist.

[worm]

Really? It's funny, cos these words below don't look like me trying to start an argument.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

And an opinion can't be wrong Chief.

Hold that thought.

Shame that you never can.

(PS: and what you said? Wrong, as ever. ).

[MrZigster]

Thinking on though, I must see Rush once more before they or I die just to be happy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7mKGYN4a6g

[RABun]

I thought of another one -

Fleetwood mac

[RABun]

I thought of another one -

Fleetwood mac

[Ricochet]

Peter Gabriel for me please.

Wouldnt mind seeing Daevid Allen and Gong one more time too. He's a very spritely 72 and shows no sign of laying his guitar down yet, but when I saw him a month or so ago, you couldnt help thinking this may not last much longer, even more so for Gilli Smyth who is 77.

[beau1]

a 10pm slot isn't (or wasn't in those days, anyhow) a headline slot. The headline act would have come on at around 10:45pm, or 11pm.

The Cure were finished playing before it was dark that year, 100% definitely.

Nope, presented to the public as the biggest act perhaps.

of the bands that played that year at the top end of the bill, they're the band that have have continued to mean something thru all of the following years. Most people today would say "who?" if you mentioned the Furs to them.

They might have played a long-ish set - just as 2nd from top does nowadays.

Things have changed in the last couple of years to give the headliners a far longer slot, but the norm back then was around 1hr 30mins for the headliner and 1hr 15mins for the 2nd from top.

It's possible that they got a slightly longer set than the normal for 2nd from top, but Glastonbury has never billed any acts as joint headliner, so The Cure weren't that.

Edited October 29, 2010 by beau1

[eFestivals]

Stilll all very strange to me, i've read in lots of places that they headlined in 1986 and I still believe that, to be quite frank.

Rather moot point but on the setlist on the other site it shows them in the 10pm-11pm box further towards the bottom e.g in what would be a headlining slot.

Even the Cure themselves say that they 'headlined the glastonbury festival for the first time in 1986'.

Having thought on it some more, perhaps you're right after all, and I'm suffering () 'Glastonbury confusion'.

My memories are very definitely that The Cure playing before the Furs, but the slight remaining memories I have of watching each band have me stood in a different position in relation to the stage for each one. So from that I guess it's possible that they didn't follow each other cos I can't think why I might have moved.

The act that was the real excitement that year, anyway, wasn't either of The Cure or the Furs, but Gil Scott-Heron - who to my shame I hadn't even heard of at that time, but enjoyed hugely. I saw him again this year, and while a more laid back set - wow!

Edited October 30, 2010 by eFestivals

[beau1]

Having thought on it some more, perhaps you're right after all, and I'm suffering () 'Glastonbury confusion'.

My memories are very definitely that The Cure playing before the Furs, but the slight remaining memories I have of watching each band have me stood in a different position in relation to the stage for each one. So from that I guess it's possible that they didn't follow each other cos I can't think why I might have moved.

The act that was the real excitement that year, anyway, wasn't either of The Cure or the Furs, but Gil Scott-Heron - who to my shame I hadn't even heard of at that time, but enjoyed hugely. I saw him again this year, and while a more laid back set - wow!

[eFestivals]

Anyways, theres that discussion done, still don't really understand Glasto's attitude of booking the same band 3 times to headline and then 9 years later claiming they were shit.

Because they WERE very underwhelming. And the only people to blame for that are The Cure for putting on those underwhelming performances.

[jump]

How can anyone have the energy to argue this for 5 days?

Rob Zombie, I'm currently scouting touts sites to find a cheapish tix for his 1st UK tour in 12 years.

[beau1]

Because they WERE very underwhelming. And the only people to blame for that are The Cure for putting on those underwhelming performances.

[eFestivals]

If they were so underwhelming then why ask them to headline another 1-2 times after giving 1-2 chances?

If you know a band is underwhelming live (or the promoters think they are) then its completely illogical to book them to HEADLINE again.

We're talking about the band who (we think) has headlined the Pyramid Stage/Main Stage more than anyone else, yet they kept on being booked because they were underwhelming. There were enough large bands in 1990 and 1995 that they could have booked instead of them.

Eavis and co. are equally to blame, its like them during around in 4 years or so and saying that Coldplays headline performances were shit.

Perhaps they hoped for better the following times? Oasis have always been shit at Glastonbury too, but it never stopped them being asked back either.

But there is actually quite a big difference - at the points that The Cure played, Glastonbury was not the "must play" event for every band that it is now. It will have been significantly more difficult to get suitable headline acts until around '95 - your assumptions here are wrong.

Eavis and co can be blamed for making a booking that could (possibly) have been bettered. They can't be held responsible for the underwhelming performances of any band.

[beau1]

Perhaps they hoped for better the following times? Oasis have always been shit at Glastonbury too, but it never stopped them being asked back either.

But there is actually quite a big difference - at the points that The Cure played, Glastonbury was not the "must play" event for every band that it is now. It will have been significantly more difficult to get suitable headline acts until around '95 - your assumptions here are wrong.

Eavis and co can be blamed for making a booking that could (possibly) have been bettered. They can't be held responsible for the underwhelming performances of any band.

[eFestivals]

Indeed. That last point is one of much debate, quite a lot of people who saw their 1986 performance rank it pretty high

Really? In all of the googling I did around this last week, the lightning storm was always described as "amazing" or similar, but The Cure's performance never was.

and their performances do not get the same amount of criticism as say Oasis 04' or RHCP @ Reading 07'.

which is because those other performances were seen by hugely more people, and by hugely more people that post in places such as here.

As far as on these forums go, you're pretty much the only one that has the strongest 'they are shit' feeling about them some people are going 'yes, they are boring'

except I've not really gone that far with my comments here tho, have I?

(I might have done once or twice - probably out of the boredom of arguing the fact - but in the main my comments have been along the lines of the "boring" you mention for other opinions expressed here).

[worm]

Really? In all of the googling I did around this last week, the lightning storm was always described as "amazing" or similar, but The Cure's performance never was.

[Kowalski]

Oaf for me.